[cc-community] Germany - NC/CC violation - request for help
Robert Atwood
lists at atwood.org.uk
Tue May 27 07:49:56 EDT 2008
Yuval Levy wrote:
> thanks for the lengthy discussion.
>
> Robert Atwood (lists) wrote:
>> I'm sure you know that really but it seems usage of (cc) then (c) in the
>> original post , where of course the (cc) material is in fact (c) . If
>> they don't nicely agree to do what you want when asked, you need to use
>> (c) law which involves lawyers, courts, etc.
>
> ok, let me expand. my understanding is that as an author i can license
> my work under different licenses. i do so when i write software, with
> dual licensing.
>
> my work published on the violated websites underlies different licenses
> because for some of it i am bound by upstream rights.
How clear is it, which license applies to which work, or how to obtain
the same work under a different license? Are we talking about confusion
over which license applies, or about the terms of the license which all
parties agree is the one that applies? I thought the latter, from the
original post,i.e. that all know what license applies but disagree over
what constitutes -NC- and possibly -SA- in some cases.
the BY-NC-SA is a
> work I am not bound by upstream rights. Here in Québec I must ask in
> advance for a release from people I take pictures of. In one specific
> case I am limited by my subject's copyright to publication just on a
> closed listed of sites and in the exact form as approved by them.
I think each work must be considered separately then, or in groups of
identical license at least. If it was simply unclear to them which ones
had what kind of license then just clarifying it should ideally help but
it sounded like you already got past that point without resolution in
your original post.
>
>
>> I guess it might be dead easy to get the (a.r.r) material ordered off,
>> I am not too sure if this venue can offer much help with that ;-0 but a
>> lawyer sure can for the correct fee :-)
>
> Aren't there lawyers on this list? yes, I understand lawyer's work has a
> value and am willing to pay a reasonable amount, ideally success-linked,
> to a lawyer in Germany.
>
>
>> I might argue, that mounting a public exhibit takes money to pay for
>> things, like if I take one of your NC works and buy a frame and place
>> your work in the frame, and hang it on the street, do I violate the
>> license because the frame maker makes money? What if the maker's name
>> is on the frame? What if the maker gave me the frame? What if I am also
>> the maker?
>>
>> See where I'm going
>
> yes - and that's one of the story I heard from the affected
> photographers from previous experiences, which just makes them less
> inclined to work with these so called non-commercial sharks that are
> worse than big business.
And judging from prior discussions on this list, makes some people leery
of the cc-nc-* type of license generally, check out the list arhcives if
you weren't reading it, for some arguments on either side.
>
>
>> In fact it leads me to wonder just what sort of use you imagine people
>> using your cc-by-nc-* works for? To be honest, that sounds a bit like
>> the kind of thing i would EXPECT at least the cc-by-nc-sa works to be
>> used for.
>
> well, my understanding of NC is that a person would take it for her
> personal website.
how about if a rich person takes it for his personal website? He's got a
big budget. He can spare a few bucks too. But you are not asking for it
so he doesn't have to give it to you.
I expect that a scientific researcher who gets big
> budgets to pay for displays, huge computing capacity, the latest FullHD
> projection technologies and all of the logisitic associated can spare a
> few bucks for the images that are oh, so unimportant when the frame is
> so cool.
They may be able to 'spare' it, but the question is whether they must.
What if its scientific research towards ... umm ... curing malaria with
freely available substances or <pick your laudable charitable activity
here> , it still may cost a huge amount of money but there's no budget
constraint on what's 'commercial' or not.
The -NC- license texts don't say 'use only on a personal website' --
apart from the difficulty of defining that, I think lots of people
involved wanted to be sure that their favourite charity could use such
-NC- licensed stuff without paying. Yes, some charities have huge
budgets, but they also do huge work, and need all that money. But
there's nothing limiting to only medical, or whatever, so some kind of
arts promotion non-profit may very well fit within the definition,
regardless of their giant budget. Also, charities or other
'non-commercial' activities that you actually disagree with could still
use it, that's the chance you take.
If this does get arbitrated in some way I would be very curious to find
out the result. the -NC- aspect starts to sound just like some of the
hypothetical cases discussed previously.
>
> yes, the SA work I did expect to be modified (and some of the people
> involved did really fun stuff with it). I do expect the modifications to
> be respectful of the original artwork.
You may expect all you want! The license does not require that. Since
the derivitive must also be -sa- then you could take the result and
make your own derivative by stenciling 'I think this is a disrespectful
pile of crap' over it or something like that and place it in some
other exhibition.
In the case of my BY-NC-SA I
> would not really mind if the framework was respectful, but some of the
> other photographers are outraged to see their artwork cropped to an
> aspect ratio it was not intended to be viewed in.
Then they should not license it -sa- . If they already did, well they
might reconsider next time and use -nd- or something like that, I'd hope
they wouldn't abandon the whole (cc) idea but instead read the whole of
each license carefully before deciding which one to use. If -sa- isn't
the type of license they used, then its a violation whether or not the
copyright holder likes the result or not.
Lawyers may correct me .. but wouldn't tacitly allowing ones you like
(if not -sa- licensed) weaken your case if wishing to disallow ones you
didn't like? I thought this was why professional copyright-holders feel
the need to act aggressively .
I have this problem with related actions of some of my immediate friends
and collaborators, that they place 'this work is licensed under a (cc)
license' and then don't even specify which one! That is totally useless
isn't it! .. some people just didn't get the whole idea yet nor read the
web site .. lots of people .. people who should know better ..
I am afraid some blame must attach to some of the promotional materials
like that video shown at the first cc-london-salon, I thought it left
the impression 'CC allows you to just share anything' , happy people
grabbing nice bits out of dumpsters.
>
>
>> It's my opinion.
>
> I appreciate it, thank you. Now, if there were lawyers reading this list
> and contacting me - I'd rather go with a lawyer that knows CC because I
> believe that somebody who is aware of a broader set of possibilities can
> widen the negotiation range - the intention is not to beat the
> offender dead, but to get them to acknowledge and understand their
> violation, make sure they respect artists in the future and get sort of
> fair compensation, not a damaging one.
Good luck -- and I believe, once this gets resolved one way or the
other, we would all like to know what the resolution is, so hopefully
you can update when it is possible to do so.
>
> Yuv
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
More information about the cc-community
mailing list